Yes, although perhaps I should not have. I knew that one was optional, and that SHA1 is thought to be a better hash than MD5, so assumed that MD5 was optional. But now that you've called attention to it, it seems that SHA1 is optional and MD5 is required (perhaps since tools expect it).

Matt Massie wrote:> It is possible to cut a new release candidate? I just made two> important commits to trunk for Avro/C that I'd like in 1.3.1.> > AVRO-449: CMake-based build system for Avro/C> AVRO-418: avro.h generates errors when included in C++ code

Are you suggesting these should be blockers for 1.3.1? Are they regressions? If so, please mark them as such and -1 this release. Otherwise they're candidates for 1.3.2 and/or 1.4.0, no?

It does not seem unlikely to me that we'll have reasons for a 1.3.2 release in a few weeks. Do others think that's too frequent?

If we are planning on releasing regular minor updates, then it canwait until 1.3.2 in a few weeks.

I'm +1 on this release.

* All tests pass on MacOS and Linux* md5/sha1 signatures are correct

-Matt

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Matt Massie wrote:>>>> It is possible to cut a new release candidate? I just made two>> important commits to trunk for Avro/C that I'd like in 1.3.1.>>>> AVRO-449: CMake-based build system for Avro/C>> AVRO-418: avro.h generates errors when included in C++ code>> Are you suggesting these should be blockers for 1.3.1? Are they> regressions? If so, please mark them as such and -1 this release. Otherwise> they're candidates for 1.3.2 and/or 1.4.0, no?>> It does not seem unlikely to me that we'll have reasons for a 1.3.2 release> in a few weeks. Do others think that's too frequent?>> Doug>